The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1887-11-03

found ourselves once more not only a united
people, but with every prospect of being more
united, more fraternal than ever our FORE
fathers had been before us, if only the gov
ernment were administered in the proper
spirit. But now, what do we hear3 Out of
ten speeches of every Republican orator,
venture to say it is not too much to assert
that nine of the ten are mainly occupied in
denunciations of what is called the "Solid
South"
Every art, every artifce, every instrument
of rhetoric and speech and writing that can
be employed to excite the people of the north
against the people of the south is resorted to
to-day from one end of the north to the other.
And why employed? Why, it is plain to
any man who will think for moment. 1t is
plain that these men want to make solid north
that shall keep the Republican ofice-hold-
ers in office for generation after generation to
come. While denouncing the south for being
solidly Democratic they are striving with all
their might, with all their power, to make
the north solidly Republican, in order by
this means, it being the stronger section of
the Union, to govern this country forever
and ever, or at least as long as they can do so
by such means. Now, l say there never was
anything more unpatriotic than that. If it is
wrong to have the south all of one party, it
is equally wrong to have all the north of one
party. The one is as much sectionalism az
the other; every bit as much sectionalism.
And therefore, when these men say that it is
q crime that there is a Solid South, they con-
denim themselves who are engaged, day in
and day out, night in and night out, in Great
ing and maintaining solid Republican North.
(Applause.)
But, my friends, what is this thing of the
Solid South, about which we hear so much
which awakens the ghosts that disturb the
sleep of Governor Foraker applause and
laughter,) and which even raises goblins and
hobgoblins dire that shake the coolness of
even my steady friend j ohm Sherman? (Great
laughter and applsuse.) What is it7 Who
made the Solid South? That is the question
want these people to answer. That is the
question 1 want to speak about. Who made
the Solid South Before the Civil War the
south was not solid and neither was the north.
Kentucky all the time, or nearly SO; Tennes-
see the greater part of the time, North Caro-
lima generally, Georgia almost always, Florida
the greater part of the time, Louisiana the
greater part of the time were steady and re-
liable Whig States. Nearly half the south
or half the southern States cast their votes
for Wing candidates against the Democracy.
There was no Solid South, and neither was
the north solid. State after State voted the
Whig ticket. But even in New England,
New Hampshire and Connecticut could be
relied upon as Democratic States almost as
much as Kentucky can now. New York was
nearly always Democratic; New Jersey also,
Pennsylvania was once the keystone State of
Democracy, and Ohio, you know it, has voted
the Democratic ticket for President nearly as
many times as it has voted the ticket of our
opponents, and Indiana, Illinois and so on.
So that there was no sectional party then.
1t was not until the Republican party was
formed in the year 1856, 1 believe, that Sec
tional lines were drawn, geographical lines
were drawn, and the people on one side of
line of States began to fall into one party and
those on the other side into another. But the
real consolidation of the south, as il is called,
did not take place until the end of the Civil
War. What then occurred? What then oc-
curred2 The Supreme Court of the United
States, delivering its opinion by the mouth of
Salmon P. Chase, declared that this republic
was composed of an indestructible general
government and indestructible sovereign
States; that the general government was
indestructible, and the States were inde-
structible.
That was the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States, delivered by no less man
than Salmon P. Chase. But did the federal
leaders in Congress accept that ? They and
their predecessors have taught the American
people from the time of Hamilton down, that
the Supreme Court of the United States is
the final arbiter of constitutional questions,
but when that court unanimously, by the
mouth of its great Chief Justice, declared
that the States were indestructible, and that
therefore no State, by going into rebellion,
had destroyed itself, what did these political
leaders in the Congress of the United States
do? Why, even before that decision was
pronounced, Mr.. Sumner introduced in the
Senate of the United States long string of
resolutions in which he asserted that the
States which had gone into rebellion had
thereby abdieated their statehood, and were
reduced to the condition of territories of the
United States, to be governed as Congress
should zee fit to govern them. Other Re-